NIDAH 69 (3 Teves) - Today's Dafyomi material has been dedicated in memory of Hagaon Rav Yisroel Zev Gustman Ztz"L (author of "Kuntresei Shiurim") and his wife, Rebbetzin Sarah Gustman (daughter of Hagaon Rav Meir Bassin, a Dayan in Vilna) in honor of the Yahrzeit of the Rebbetzin. Sponsored by a Talmid of Rav Gustman (M. Kornfeld).

1)

TOSFOS DH v'Hacha Ka Mashma Lan Sofan Af Al Pi she'Ein Techilasan

úåñôåú ã"ä åäëà ÷î''ì ñåôï àò''ô ùàéï úçìúï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when Rav requires a Zavah to separate in Taharah.)

åàí úàîø (à''ë) ìøá ëì æáä öøéëä äôøùä áéåí ùôåñ÷ú áå ëîå ðãä åàîàé ÷úðé áîúðé' ùáã÷ä òöîä éåí øàùåï äà ëáøáã÷ä òöîä îàúîåì åäôøéùä áèäøä

(a)

Question: According to Rav, every Zavah must separate on the day she ceases [seeing], like [Rav said above (68a) about] a Nidah. Why does our Mishnah say that she checked herself on the first day? She already checked herself yesterday, and separated in Taharah!

åàé äåä àåîø ãìà áòéðï äôøùä áéåí â' äåä ðéçà

(b)

Answer #1: If he would say [unlike the question assumed] that [a Zavah] need not separate [in Taharah] on the third, this would be fine.

åé''ì ãìéëà ìîéã÷ äëé ãàôé' àé ñâé áäôøùú ùìéùé ìøáé àìéòæø ìà ñâé ãìà úðé ùáã÷ä áéåí øàùåï îùåí ôìåâúà ãøáé éäåùò åøáé ò÷éáà

(c)

Rebuttal (and Answer #2): We cannot infer so. Even if [our assumption is correct, and a Zavah must separate on day three, and] it suffices to separate on day three according to R. Eliezer (i.e. this helps like checking on the first clean day), it needed to teach that she checked on the first [clean] day, due to the argument of R. Yehoshua and R. Akiva.

ëîå øàùåï åùîéðé ã÷àîø øá ìøáé àìéòæø äéà äéà åìà úðé áîúðé' àò''â ãìø' àìéòæø äåé øáåúà èôé îùåí ãìà îéúðé ìéä úå ôìåâúà ãø' éäåùò åø' ò÷éáà

(d)

Support: This is like [when she checked only on] days one and eight. Rav said that according to R. Eliezer, the same applies, yet it was not taught in our Mishnah, even though according to R. Eliezer it is a bigger Chidush, because then it would not teach the argument of R. Yehoshua and R. Akiva. (Had it taught this case, we could not derive their opinions about when she checked only on days one and seven.)

2)

TOSFOS DH Shiv'ah l'Nidah u'Shnayim l'Zivah

úåñôåú ã"ä ùáòä ìðãä åùðéí ìæéáä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot derive that she need not count in front of us.)

îëàï àéï éëåì ìã÷ã÷ ãìà áòéðï ñôåøéí áôðéðå îãèåáìú àò''ô ùìà äôñé÷ä áèäøä åìà áã÷ä ðîé áúçìú ñôåøéí

(a)

Suggestion: We can infer from here that she need not count in front of us, since she immerses, even though she was not Mafsik in Taharah, and she did not check also at the beginning of the count!

ãàò''â ãìà áòéðï ñôåøéí áôðéðå áæáä ÷èðä áæáä âãåìä áòéðï

(b)

Rejection #1: Even though a Zavah Ketanah need not count in front of us, a Zavah Gedolah must.

åòåã ãñåó ñåó ñâé ìä áîä ùáã÷ä áéåí äñôéøä åîöàä èäåøä

(c)

Rejection #2: In any case, it suffices that she checked on the day of counting and found herself Tehorah;

ãàé àéï áãé÷ú ñåó äéåí òåìä ìñôéøä ìà äéä ú÷ðä ìáðåú éùøàì àìà àí ëï éáã÷å áòìééú òîåã äùçø ãñôéøú ìéìä àéðä ñôéøä:

1.

If checking at the end (i.e. not at the beginning) of the day did not count [towards her seven clean days], there would be no solution for Benos Yisrael unless they checked at dawn, for counting at night is not counting.

69b----------------------------------------69b

3)

TOSFOS DH Mah l'Almanah l'Kohen Gadol she'Chen Hi Atzmah Mischaleles...

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìàìîðä ìëäï âãåì ùëï äéà òöîä îúçììú...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when we can learn that Bi'as Isur disqualifies.)

ôé' îï äúøåîä åôéøù (äâäú äøù"ù, òøåì ìðø) øù''é ãëé úäéä ìàéù æø ãîéðéä éìôéðï (éáîåú ãó ñç.) ëéåï ùðáòìä ìôñåì ìä ôñìä îï äëäåðä àééøé áàìîðä ìë''â

(a)

Explanation: [The widow is disqualified] from Terumah, and Rashi (Yevamos 15b) explained that "Ki Sihyeh l'Ish Zar", from which we learn that once she had Bi'ah with someone forbidden to her, she is disqualified from Kehunah, discusses a widow to a Kohen Gadol;

ãìà îééøé áîçæéø âøåùúå ãìàå æø îòé÷øà äåà àöìä

1.

It does not discuss Machzir Gerushaso (one who remarried his divorcee after she married someone else), for he is not a Zar me'Ikara (he was not forbidden to her from birth).

îéäå ÷ùä ãðäé ãìà îöéðï ìîéìó îäàé ÷øà î''î úúçìì îäàé ÷ì åçåîø âåôéä

(b)

Question #1: Granted, we cannot learn from this verse. In any case she should be Mischaleles (profaned) due to the Kal v'Chomer itself!

åëï áô' äçåìõ (ùí ãó îã.) ãéìéó ìø' éäåùò ãçééáé ëøéúåú áðä ôâåí îäàé ÷ì åçåîø ãàìîðä ìë''â åôøéê ëé äëà ìéîà äéà òöîä îúçììú î÷''å åúàñø àó îúøåîä

(c)

Question #2: In Yevamos (44a), R. Yehoshua learns that [the son of] Chayavei Kerisus is disqualified from this Kal v'Chomer of a widow to a Kohen Gadol, and the Gemara asks that she herself should be Mischaleles from this Kal v'Chomer, and be forbidden even to Terumah!

åé''ì ëéåï ãàéï çììä (äâäú îäø"î) àìà îàéñåø ëäåðä ìéëà ìîéìó áòìîà ìôñåì äàùä òöîä îàéñåø ëäåðä

(d)

Answer: Since Chalalah results only from Isurei Kehunah, we cannot learn in general to disqualify the woman herself with an Isur of Kehunah. (Maharam - she can become forbidden, but she cannot get the full status of a Chalalah. Below, Tosfos suggests that we learn an Isur from a Tzad ha'Shavah, but not the full status of a Chalalah.)

ãìäëé àééúø äúí çììä ìîéîø ãàéï çììä àìà îàéñåø ëäåðä ãäééðå ôñåì äàùä ùäéúä ëùøä åðúçììä

1.

"Chalalah" is extra there (the Torah already forbade her to [all] Kohanim. There was no need to write that she is forbidden to a Kohen Gadol) to teach that Chalalah results only from Isurei Kehunah, i.e. the Pesul of the woman who was Kosher and became profaned.

åàó ò''â ãâø òîåðé åîåàáé ôåñìéï àò''â ãìà äåå àéñåø ëäåðä

(e)

Implied question: An Amoni or Mo'avi convert disqualifies [a Bas Yisrael with whom he has Bi'ah], even though this is not an Isur Kehunah!

äúí î÷øà ãøùéðï ìéä àáì î÷''å ìéëà ìîéìó

(f)

Answer: There we expound from a verse, but we cannot learn from a Kal v'Chomer.

åîéäå ÷ùä ðéìó îàìîðä ìëä''â åîòåáã ëåëáéí åòáã àé ðîé îçìì åòåáã ëåëáéí åòáã àå âø òîåðé åîöøé åàãåîé áîä äöã ãäéà òöîä îúçììú

(g)

Question #1: We should learn a Tzad ha'Shavah from a widow to a Kohen Gadol, and a Nochri or slave [who had Bi'ah with a Bas Yisrael], or from [a Tzad ha'Shavah of] a Chalal and (one of the following who had Bi'ah with a Bas Yisrael -) a Nochri or slave or an Amoni, Mitzri or Edomi convert, that she herself is Mischaleles!

ãëé ôøëéðï îä ìàìîðä ìë''â àå ìçìì ùëï àéñåø ëäåðä

1.

Implied question: You cannot learn from a widow to a Kohen Gadol, or a Chalal, for they are Isurei Kehunah!

àéëà ìîéîø òåáã ëåëáéí åòáã éåëéçå ãìàå àéñåø ëäåðä åôåñìéï ááéàúí

(h)

Answer: We can say that a Nochri or slave is Yochi'ach (proves that the law does not depend on this). They are not Isurei Kehunah, and they disqualify through Bi'ah!

îä ìòåáã ëåëáéí åòáã ùëï àñåøéï ìáà á÷äì àå ãìà úôñé áäå ÷ãåùéï

1.

Implied question: You cannot learn from a Nochri or slave, for they are forbidden to marry Yisraelim, or because they cannot have Kidushin!

àìîðä ìë''â àå çìì éåëéçå äöã äùåä ùáäï ùàéðí áøåá ä÷äì åôåñìéï ááéàúï àó îçæéø âøåùúå éôñìðä ááéàúå

2.

Answer: A widow to a Kohen Gadol, or a Chalal, is Yochi'ach. What is common to them is that they are unlike the majority of Klal Yisrael, and they disqualify through Bi'ah. Also Machzir Gerushaso should disqualify her through his Bi'ah!

åäëé îééúé ø' éäåãä ãâø ôåñì ááéàúå áô' áúøà ã÷ãåùéï (ãó òç.) áîä äöã ãàéñåø ëäåðä åîéìúà àçøéúé áäãä ãäééðå îçìì åîöøé øàùåï

(i)

Strengthening of Question #1: So R. Yehudah shows that a convert disqualifies through Bi'ah, in Kidushin (78a) through a Tzad ha'Shavah of Isurei Kehunah and another matter with it, i.e. a Chalal or Mitzri Rishon (a Mitzri convert. He and his children (who are Sheniyim) are forbidden to Yisraelim, and the third generation is permitted).

åëï ðîé ú÷ùä àîàé îöøéê áô' àìîðä ìëä''â (éáîåú ãó ñç.) ÷øà ãåëé úäéä ìàéù æø ìâø òîåðé åîåàáé ãôåñìéï ááéàúí ðéìó áîä äöã îçìì åòåáã ëåëáéí åòáã ëãôéøùúé

(j)

Question #2: We can also ask why we require in Yevamos (68a) the verse Ki Sihyeh l'Ish to teach that an Amoni or Mo'avi convert disqualifies through Bi'ah. We should learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah from a Chalal and a Nochri or slave, like I explained!

åéù ìåîø ëéåï ãáòåáã ëåëáéí åòáã äåìã îîæø ìéëà ìîéìó úå îéðééäå ôñåì áéàä ëéåï ãçîéøé ëåìé äàé ãååìãï îîæø

(k)

Answer: Since from a Nochri or slave the child is a Mamzer, we cannot learn from them to disqualify through Bi'ah, since they are so stringent that the child is a Mamzer;

ããå÷à øáé éäåãä éìéó á÷ãåùéï (ùí) ãâø ôåñì ááéàúå îîöøé øàùåï àó òì âá ãáúå ôñåìä ìáà á÷äì àáì øáðï ôìéâé òìéä ãìéú ìäå äê ñáøà

1.

Only R. Yehudah learns in Kidushin (78a) that a convert disqualifies through Bi'ah, from a Mitzri Rishon, even though [a Mitzri Rishon's] daughter is forbidden to Yisraelim. Rabanan disagree with this reasoning.

åîúåê äàé ùéðåéà îúøöà ðîé ÷åùéà àçøéúé áôø÷ äòøì (éáîåú ãó òæ.) ã÷àîø âø òîåðé (äâää áâìéåï, îäîäøù"à) áúå ëùøä ìëäåðä

(l)

Support: This answers another question from Yevamos (77a). It says that the daughter of an Amoni convert is Kosher to Kehunah;

åôøéê åðéîà ãôñåì áîä äöã ãàìîðä ìëä''â åçìì åîùðé ãàéëà ìîôøê îä ìäöã äùåä ùáäï ùëï éù áäï öã òáéøä

1.

The Gemara asks that we should say that she is Pasul, due to a Tzad ha'Shavah of a widow to a Kohen Gadol and a Chalal, and answers that we can challenge it. There is an Aveirah in both sources. (Even though a Chalal's Bi'ah is permitted, he results from an Aveirah.)

åàîàé ìà ÷àîø îöøé øàùåï éåëéç ãäëé éìéó á÷ãåùéï (ãó òç.) ìø' éäåãä

2.

Question: Why don't we say that a Mitzri Rishon is Yochi'ach? (No Aveirah was involved, yet his daughter is forbidden.) This is how R. Yehudah learns in Kidushin (78a)!

àìà ëéåï ãáúå ôñåìä ì÷äì ìà éìôéðï îéðéä ôñåì ëäåðä (äâää áâìéåï, îäîäøù"à) àìà ãå÷à ìø' éäåãä

3.

Answer: Since his daughter is disqualified to Kahal [Yisrael], we do not learn from him a Pesul Kehunah. Only R. Yehudah does.

åà''ú ìîàï ãàîø (éáîåú ãó îä.) òåáã ëåëáéí åòáã äáà òì áú éùøàì äåìã ëùø àí ëï ðéìó ãäéà òöîä îúçììú ëãôé'

(m)

Question: According to the opinion (Yevamos 45a) that if a Nochri or slave had Bi'ah with a Bas Yisrael, the child is Kosher, if so we should learn that she herself is Mischaleles, like I explained!

åéù ìåîø ãìà éìôéðï îàéñåø ëäåðä åîéìúà àçøéúé áäãä àìà ìø' éäåãä ãå÷à ëãàùëçï á÷ãåùéï àáì ìøáðï ìéú ìäå äê ñáøà:

(n)

Answer: We do not learn from Isurei Kehunah and another matter with it. Only R. Yehudah does, like we find in Kidushin. Rabanan disagree with this reasoning.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF